#Confirmation Bias

[blitzsicedcoffee]

Hey this is great and all for folks who are still willing for information to be up to facts. And to change their mind when presented with something that someone they like that said something is not true. None of this however is working on the people who blindly believe podcasters, who blindly believe YouTubers, who blindly believe the people on their TV like Fox (Faux) News.

They are currently incapable of doing their own research because they just won't do it. They don't want to stop listening to that person that they blindly believe. It's scary but it's true.

My husband's mother is currently incapable of doing her own research. She uses a screen reader on her phone for everything she sees and it's already inaccessible and sometimes inaccurate. She is not going to also do her own research, no matter how much my husband tells her to. She is going to believe whatever she wants to listen to. Because it's easier for her. More accessible to her. Even if it leads into conspiracies that she now believes.

Many will also just simply (not) do their own research out of wanting to confirm their own bias or will just convince themselves that where they got it from is a worthy source. To save themselves the energy.

You might think it's lazy but Americans work 40-60 hours per week. There is no time. Then add kids on top of that. This is how we got so many people voting for that reality fucking TV doofus a second time. Make the election complicated, require people to do their own research and you lose the support of the masses. If you want to inspire people, YOU have to do the research and be the one that tells it to them. And why.

It sucks. We wish everyone did their OWN research. We wish everyone didn't have to be handheld and educated into empathy. But it's reality.

I am becoming aware of the effect a lack of trust in the media has had on people, paired with a dearth of research skills.

[creature-wizard]

What's so bad about angel numbers?

So the main problem with angel numbers that I see, is that they make people feel really certain about things that have nothing to do with reality.

For example, you might have this spiritual kinda person who meets this New Ager who's deep into QAnon-type conspiracy theories, and while they're chatting the first person sees that the clock says 11:11 and thinks that she must be on the right path. So she feels really, really sure of herself when she comes out of this conversation convinced that Donald Trump is saving children from satanic blood-drinking pedophiles.

The same kind of thing can happen with any kind of synchronicity, of course. (Or seeming synchronicity, at least. The frequency illusion is a hell of a thing.) Confirmation bias pulls people deeper and deeper into worldviews and beliefs completely unhinged from reality.

And like, I've experienced synchronicities myself, some of which seem way too wild to be coincidental, so I know how compelling these experiences can be. But at the same time, I know that these synchronicities had nothing to do with any sort of grand spiritual journey toward the truth, because they were basically always about whatever random shit I was fixating on at the time. This whole idea that synchronicities must be some grand cosmic sign is extremely dangerous.

[acti-veg]

It is just so funny to me to see popular posts making fun of climate change deniers, alongside similarly popular anti-vegan posts engaging in the kind of denialism that would make a flat-earther blush. But who needs a source when you have confirmation bias?

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

"If you do or do not believe in god and do or do not repost this something will or will not happen."

I couldn't believe it! It worked for me!

[eretzyisrael]

Elica Le Bon الیکا‌ ل بن @elicalebon:

"There is a very specific psychological process behind the “Jews control the world” trope that antisemitic persons subscribe to.

Let’s break down the process:

By way of background, millennia of anti-Jewish propaganda creates a conditioned stimulus - conditioned response effect.

First, they’re exposed to an event (conditioned stimulus). Because of their programmed internal bias, they automatically draw assumptions about Jews being somehow guilty in relation to the event (conditioned response).

Second, they engage in confirmation bias—“the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs”—by looking for information that tends to support their demonized perception of Jews.

Third, they draw conclusions on what they falsely determine to be “facts, research, and evidence” (which is in fact just confirmation bias), that the Jews are in fact entirely at fault for the event.

Fourth, they begin to observe that certain media outlets or commentators contradict their narrative and portray the event in a much more balanced way, or in a way that may exonerate Jews from the unfair charges levied against them.

Here, they enter a state of cognitive dissonance: the discomfort felt when one’s perceptions or beliefs are inconsistent with reality, thus compelling their desire to end the psychological disturbance.

Finally, because they cannot reconcile these two things—the contradiction between perception and reality—the solution to alleviate this uncomfortable state is not to admit that they were wrong (which may cause even more discomfort in identifying themselves as hateful) but to reason that they are most certainly correct, and that the only explanation for this contradiction is that Jews control the world, the media, and the narrative, and are dictating that narrative in their favor (full blown conspiracy psychosis).

At this stage, If they suffer from an intense savior complex, they may make it their mission to “expose” this “truth about Zionists” to the world, hoping the gnawing feeling of internal deregulation will be resolved by doubling down against it.

At bottom, they just cannot accept that their “truth” about Jews is fundamentally hatred, bigotry, bias, and cold, hard antisemitism.

It’s been thousands of years in the making and always ends in bloodshed - when are we implementing programs to dismantle this in schools?''

[tilbageidanmark]

A list of cognitive biases

[catofoldstones]

[mrbopst]

[sweaterkittensahoy]

Last thought before bed:

If you are going "omg looking back it is so obvious DJ and Ty were dating!!" and your sources are the same public-facing sources anyone has (insta photos of two people who like each other because they were both on a show with famous amounts of cast-likability): you didn't know shit. You're just doing a cannon ball into the worst kind of confirmation bias.

You didn't know. And it's fucking weird you are trying to pretend like you knew. And it's fucking weird to act like there were any loud clues to point you in that direction.

"BUT GAYLE THE KISSING PHOTO--"

The one at someone's birthday with Ty in a sailor hat? That one? The one that looks like any number of fun, casual, goofy moments between two men even when one of them is an out gay man?

You didn't know. It's fucking weird and uncomfortable to act like you did. These are two actual people not characters from that mid-tier show we all watched. Knock it off.

[mafaldaknows]

Twitter: Stopworkplacebullies

[faceplant-bassplant]

I'm pretty sure being kinky and/or queer correlates with being godly at videogames

[imkeepinit]

[dogstomp]

Dogstomp #2854 - October 30th

Patreon / Twitter / Discord Server

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

[lifewithchronicpain]

If you've ever found it puzzling that "do your own research" is a slogan for conspiracy theorists of all stripes, new research may have some answers. While conventional wisdom holds that researching the veracity of fake news would reduce belief in misinformation, a study published on Wednesday in Nature has found that using online search engines to vet conspiracies can actually increase the chance that someone will believe it. The researchers point to a known problem in search called "data voids." Sometimes, there's not a lot of high-quality information to counter misleading headlines or surrounding fringe theories. So, when someone sees an article online about an ��engineered famine” due to COVID-19 lockdowns and vaccines, and conducts an unsophisticated search based on those keywords, they may find articles that reaffirm their bias.

[critical-skeptic]

Why I Call Out Idiots, Ridicule Them, and Still Put in the Intellectual Effort

Let’s get one thing clear right out of the gate: engaging with the intellectually bankrupt isn't about convincing them. It’s not about changing the mind of the conspiracy nut, the QMAGA cultist, the religious zealot, or the Dunning-Kruger poster child who thinks they know more than any expert because they once watched a YouTube video. Most of these people are beyond reasoning. They've willingly turned off the critical thinking switch in their heads and committed to their insulated worldview. Trying to talk them out of it is like trying to teach a fish how to ride a bike—it’s pointless, exhausting, and ultimately a waste of time.

But here's the thing: I’m not talking to them. When I call out their bullshit, ridicule their arguments, and put the intellectual or academic effort into tearing down their fallacies, it's not for their benefit. They’re lost causes. It’s for the one person in the crowd—the bystander, the lurker, the person who hasn’t yet fully bought into the echo chamber of ignorance—who might be open to listening. That person? They’re worth the effort.

There's a popular conception that if you engage with these kinds of people, you should do so respectfully, patiently, and with empathy. Frankly, that’s nonsense. These ideologues don’t deserve respect because they have no respect for truth. They don't deserve empathy because their entire shtick is designed to perpetuate ignorance, division, and sometimes outright harm. When someone uses their platform to spread blatant lies or dangerous fallacies, they should be called out—and if it takes ridicule to do that, so be it.

Critics might say, "But you're not going to convince them if you're dismissive or rude." Guess what? I don’t give a damn. I’m not interested in convincing someone who thinks the Earth is flat, that vaccines are mind control devices, or that an invisible deity is pulling the strings of the universe. What I care about is the other people watching, the ones who are still on the fence. The ones who might be swayed if they see someone actually pushing back against the tide of misinformation. If one person out of a hundred sees my argument and it plants a seed of doubt in their mind about the nonsense they're being fed, that’s worth it.

This is about reaching them—the thinkers, the skeptics, the people who might not even realize they’re hungry for real information. Maybe they’ve been floating around in the middle, too timid or unsure to push back themselves, too lost in the noise to seek out better sources. When they see someone pushing back—whether with logic, mockery, or cold, hard facts—it might just give them the encouragement they need to look deeper.

We live in a time when people are retreating into ideological bubbles, only talking to people who agree with them. That’s dangerous. It allows bad ideas to fester, unchecked, and gives the impression that everyone is either an extremist or a coward. I'm not interested in talking only to my bubble. I want to break through the walls and let people outside see that there’s another way to think. That’s why I engage. That's why I argue. And when necessary, that's why I ridicule.

The problem with staying silent or pretending these people can be reasoned with is that it normalizes their nonsense. It gives the impression that their ideas are just one side of a "legitimate debate." Newsflash: they're not. When you engage with a creationist, you're not debating science versus religion. You're calling out blatant ignorance masquerading as intellect. When you respond to a QMAGA believer who claims Trump was sent by God, you’re not engaging in a political conversation. You’re confronting a cultist mindset. And when you take on a conspiracy theorist who thinks 5G is part of a global mind-control plot, you’re not discussing telecommunications technology; you're pointing out someone’s dangerous disconnection from reality.

So, why do I still bother? Because it matters. Even if 99 out of 100 people are unreachable, there’s always the chance that the one who’s left will see the truth. And that’s worth everything. We all have a responsibility not to just talk to our perceptive bubbles, but to provide others with the tools and information they need to see things for themselves. You don’t have to force anyone; you just have to be there to plant the seed.

The world doesn’t change because a few idiots get smarter—it changes when a silent majority sees that the idiots can and should be called out. When rational people stop being silent and start pushing back, others take notice. And maybe, just maybe, that leads to real change.

This is the goal—what should be everyone’s goal. Not to convince every lost cause, but to ensure that the people on the fence have a clear view of both sides. And to make damn sure they know which side is built on reason, evidence, and truth.

If calling out the bullshitters and ridiculing the dogmatic helps accomplish that, then I’ll gladly do it every day.